Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: OzmO on May 19, 2009, 11:05:38 AM
-
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In_New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_Mans_Earliest_Ancestor (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In_New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_Mans_Earliest_Ancestor)
The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years - but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York.
The discovery of the 95%-complete 'lemur monkey' - dubbed Ida - is described by experts as the "eighth wonder of the world".
They say its impact on the world of palaeontology will be "somewhat like an asteroid falling down to Earth".
Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle.
Sir David Attenborough said Darwin "would have been thrilled" to have seen the fossil - and says it tells us who we are and where we came from.
Pictures From Atlantic Productions
"This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals," he said.
"This is the one that connects us directly with them.
"Now people can say 'okay we are primates, show us the link'.
"The link they would have said up to now is missing - well it's no longer missing."
A team of the world's leading fossil experts, led by Professor Jorn Hurum, of Norway's National History Museum, have been secretly researching the 1ft 9in-tall young female monkey for the past two years.
And now it has been transported to New York under high security and unveiled to the world during the bicentenary of Darwin's birth.
Charles Darwin
Darwin caused storm with his theory
Later this month, it will be exhibited for one day only at the Natural History Museum in London before being returned to Oslo.
Scientists say Ida - squashed to the thickness of a beer mat by the immense passage of time - is the most complete primate fossil ever found.
With her human-like nails instead of claws, and opposable big toes, she is placed at the very root of human evolution when early primates first developed features that would eventually develop into our own.
Another important discovery is the shape of the talus bone in her foot, which humans still have in their feet millions of lifetimes later.
Ida was unearthed by an amateur fossil-hunter some 25 years ago in Messel pit, an ancient crater lake near Frankfurt, Germany, famous for its fossils.
This fossil is really a part of our history; this is part of our evolution, deep, deep back into the aeons of time, 47 million years ago.
Fossil expert Professor Jorn Hurum
She was cleaned and set in polyester resin - and incredibly, was hung on a mystery German collector's wall for 20 years.
Sky News sources say the owner had no idea of the unique fossil's significance and simply admired it like a cherished Van Gogh or Picasso painting.
But in 2006, Ida came into the hands of private dealer Thomas Perner, who presented her to Prof Hurum at the annual Hamburg Fossil and Mineral Fair in Germany - a centre for the murky world of fossil-trading.
Prof Hurum said when he first saw the blueprint for evolution - the "most beautiful fossil worldwide" - he could not sleep for two days.
A home movie records the dramatic moment.
"This is really something that the world has never seen before, this is a unique specimen, totally unique," he says, clearly emotional.
The missing link fossil
X-ray of Ida's badly fractured left wrist
He says he knew she should be saved for science rather than end up hidden from the world in a wealthy private collector's vault.
But the dealer's asking price was more than $1 million (£660,000) - ten times the amount even the rarest of fossils fetch on the black market.
Eventually, after six months of negotiations, he managed to raise the cash in Norway and brought Ida to Oslo.
Attenborough: The Link Is No Longer Missing
Prof Hurum - who last summer dug up the fossil remains of a 50ft marine monster called Predator X from the permafrost on Svalbard, a Norwegian island close to the North Pole - then assembled a "dream team" of experts who worked in secret for two years.
They included palaeontologist Dr Jens Franzen, Dr Holly Smith, of the University of Michigan, and Philip Gingerich, president-elect of the US Paleontological Society.
Researchers could prove the fossil was genuine through X-rays, knowing it is impossible to fake the inner structure of a bone.
Through radiometric dating of Messel's volcanic rocks, they discovered Ida lived 47 million years ago in the Eocene period.
This was when tropical forests stretched right to the poles, and South America was still drifting and had yet to make contact with North America.
During that period, the first whales, horses, bats and monkeys emerged, and the early primates branched into two groups - one group lived on mainly as lemurs, and the second developed into monkeys, apes and humans.
The experts concluded Ida was not simply a lemur but a 'lemur monkey', displaying a mixture of both groups, and therefore putting her at the very branch of the human line.
This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals. This is the one that connects us directly with them.
Sir David Attenborough
"When Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859, he said a lot about transitional species," said Prof Hurum
"...and he said that will never be found, a transitional species, and his whole theory will be wrong, so he would be really happy to live today when we publish Ida.
"This fossil is really a part of our history; this is part of our evolution, deep, deep back into the aeons of time, 47 million years ago.
"It's part of our evolution that's been hidden so far, it's been hidden because all the other specimens are so incomplete.
"They are so broken there's almost nothing to study and now this wonderful fossil appears and it makes the story so much easier to tell, so it's really a dream come true."
Up until now, the most famous fossil primate in the world has been Lucy, a 3.18-million-year-old hominid found in Ethiopia in 1974.
She was then our earliest known ancestor, and only 40% complete.
Descended from the apes! My dear, let us hope that it is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not become generally known.
Bishop of Worcester's wife to Charles Darwin
But at 95% complete, Ida was so well preserved in the mud at the bottom of the volcanic lake, there is even evidence of her fur shadow and remains of her last meal.
From this they concluded she was a leaf and fruit eater, and probably lived in the trees around the lake.
The absence of a bacculum (penis bone) confirmed she was female, and her milk teeth put her age at about nine-months-old - in maturity, equivalent to a six-year-old human child.
This was the same age as Prof Hurum's daughter Ida, and he named the fossil after her.
The study is being published and put online by the Public Library of Science, a leading academic journal with offices in Britain and the US.
Dr Hurum also found Predator X
Co-author of the scientific paper, Prof Gingerich, likens its importance to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, an ancient Egyptian artefact found in 1799, which allowed us to decipher hieroglyphic writing.
One clue to Ida's fate - and her remarkable preservation as our oldest ancestor - was her badly fractured left wrist.
The team believes this stopped her from climbing and she had to emerge from the trees to drink water from the 250-metre-deep lake.
They think she was overcome by carbon dioxide gas from the crater, and sunk to the bottom where she was preserved in the mud as a time capsule - and a snapshot of evolution.
But amazingly this final piece of Darwin's jigsaw was almost lost to science when German authorities tried to turn Messel into a massive landfill rubbish dump.
Eventually, after campaigning by Dr Franzen, the plans were rejected and the fossil-rich lake was designated a World Heritage Site.
But no doubt there would have been one person happy for the missing link to have remained hidden.
When Darwin famously told the Bishop of Worcester's wife about his theory of evolution, she remarked: "Descended from the apes! My dear, let us hope that it is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not become generally known."
Now, it certainly is.
-
BOOOM... hahaha... "where's the missing link, where's the missing link..." The party was bound to be over someday.
-
I want my baddass tail back >:(
-
BOOOM... hahaha... "where's the missing link, where's the missing link..." The party was bound to be over someday.
Coach says it's a fake. ;)
-
Coach says it's a fake. ;)
well there have been fakes before but I doubt this is.
-
well there have been fakes before but I doubt this is.
I was being sarcastic; Coach is an idiot. Of course this is legit.
-
I was being sarcastic
I know. Just worth mentioning since it'll probably be mentioned.
-
So this monkey fossil is the missing link? Oh brother. The "missing link" isn't just a single fossil. It's an entire fossil record.
Anyway, looks like a monkey to me.
-
So this monkey fossil is the missing link? Oh brother. The "missing link" isn't just a single fossil. It's an entire fossil record.
Anyway, looks like a monkey to me.
lol
-
Oh, this is a serious thread. I did not even bother opening it before because I thought it was the same old joke and I was just going to find a picture of George W. Bush or Joe Biden, or somebody else once I opened the thread. ;D
So, the missing link is a monkey. Monkeys are not apes.
Funny how scientists for years have been trying to hammer it into the heads of the general population that monkeys are not apes and that humans DID NOT evolve from monkeys. Now they are going to confuse them by telling them that the missing link is a monkey. :)
Where We Came From
1. Did we evolve from monkeys?
Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html
-
I didn't read the whole thing thoroughly but ...................
1. What is a beer mat?
2. Why can't I have some fly opposable big toes?
3. I thought I read "Lucy" was proven to be a fraud?
4. How many "Darwinists/Evolutionists" immediately accepted these findings as true? Do you still accept them as true a couple days later? Why or why not?
-
So this monkey fossil is the missing link? Oh brother. The "missing link" isn't just a single fossil. It's an entire fossil record.
Anyway, looks like a monkey to me.
there is already an entire fossil record that show logical progression from one species to the next, if this is real it will simply fall in line.
-
I didn't read the whole thing thoroughly but ...................
1. What is a beer mat?
2. Why can't I have some fly opposable big toes?
3. I thought I read "Lucy" was proven to be a fraud?
4. How many "Darwinists/Evolutionists" immediately accepted these findings as true? Do you still accept them as true a couple days later? Why or why not?
rofl
-
rofl
Oppose this >:(
-
I didn't read the whole thing thoroughly but ...................
1. What is a beer mat?
2. Why can't I have some fly opposable big toes?
3. I thought I read "Lucy" was proven to be a fraud?
4. How many "Darwinists/Evolutionists" immediately accepted these findings as true? Do you still accept them as true a couple days later? Why or why not?
1. where does it say something about a beer mat? iono what it is but im curious...
2. HUH?
3. Lucy is absolutely not a fraud, she was in houston not but a yr or so ago at one of the museums here.
4. I havent read the entire thing, but its obvious that this article doesnt go into depth as to why this species is the missing link it simply gives a few reasons without going into much detail. Ill wait until i see it text books that have been peer reviewed or articles that go into more depth that are peer reviewed.
-
So this monkey fossil is the missing link? Oh brother. The "missing link" isn't just a single fossil. It's an entire fossil record.
Anyway, looks like a monkey to me.
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
Just something for you to look over beach, my prof never emailed me back man, ill try and find that text book name though...
-
Oh, this is a serious thread. I did not even bother opening it before because I thought it was the same old joke and I was just going to find a picture of George W. Bush or Joe Biden, or somebody else once I opened the thread. ;D
So, the missing link is a monkey. Monkeys are not apes.
Funny how scientists for years have been trying to hammer it into the heads of the general population that monkeys are not apes and that humans DID NOT evolve from monkeys. Now they are going to confuse them by telling them that the missing link is a monkey. :)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html
uh... one of us is missing something, if it's me I apologize but with the timeline on this, is this not a common ancestor to both humans, apes and monkeys? Kind of makes your point irrelevant.
-
Oppose this >:(
meltdown :)
-
It's fun to see how people are falling right in line. :)
I think its an interesting article. Whether it's premise is fact or not will "evolve" in time.
-
uh... one of us is missing something, if it's me I apologize but with the timeline on this, is this not a common ancestor to both humans, apes and monkeys? Kind of makes your point irrelevant.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/19/human.ancestor/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/19/human.ancestor/index.html)
CNN) -- Scientists hailed Tuesday a 47-million-year-old fossil of an ancient "small cat"-sized primate as a possible common ancestor of monkeys, humans and other primates.
The fossil is believed to be an ancestor of monkeys, humans and other primates.
Scientists say the fossil, dubbed "Ida," is a transitional species, living around the time the primate lineage split into two groups: A line that would eventually produce humans and monkeys, and another that would give rise to primates such as lemurs.
The fossil was formally named Darwinius masillae, in honor of the anniversary of Charles Darwin's 200th birthday.
"This is the most complete primate fossil before human burial," said Dr. Jorn Hurum, of the Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo, who led the study of the fossil, a young female primate.
"And it's not a few million years old; it's 47 million years old," Hurum said, speaking at a news conference at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
The fossil was discovered in 1983 in the Messel Pit, Germany, near Frankfurt, and had been until recently in private collections, according to an article published Tuesday in the scientific journal PLoS ONE, a publication of the Public Library of Science. Read the report from PLoS ONE
However, because it was split into two parts, its significance was not immediately recognized.
Don't Miss
Famous paleontologist to plead guilty to fossil theft
Smallest known North American dinosaur found
An international team of scientists, which Hurum led, conducted a detailed forensic analysis of the fossil for the past two years, the release said.
Hurum nicknamed the fossil Ida after his young daughter, he said.
The fossil's body is nearly complete; only part of one leg is missing, according to Hurum. In addition to the bones, the softer features are also preserved, as are the remnants of its last meal: fruits, seeds and leaves, which were found in Ida's gut, according to the scientists.
"It's such a beautiful specimen," Hurum said of Ida. He said the fossil is about 2 feet long, "like a small cat in size."
The fossil has both adult and baby teeth, indicating that it was weaned and about 9 months old when it died, the PLoS article said.
She would have eventually grown to the size of a lemur, the article said.
The young primate fossil does not have two crucial anatomical features found in lemurs: a grooming claw on the second digit of its foot and a fused row of teeth in the middle of its lower jaw, known as a toothcomb, the scientists said.
X-rays revealed a broken wrist, which the team of scientists believe may have contributed to Ida's death, according to a news release from the museum at Oslo.
Ida may have been overcome by carbon dioxide gas while drinking from the Messel lake, which was often covered by a low-lying blanket of the gas, the news release said. Hampered by the broken wrist, the young primate may have fallen into unconsciousness and may have slipped into the lake. The primate sunk to the bottom and was preserved for 47 million years, the news release said.
-
Oppose this >:(
bring it sloth girl!
-
It's fun to see how people are falling right in line. :)
You knew they would
-
The scientists at that place in Norway = pretty darn serious people, and norwegian culture = not really supportive for making bravado claims without backing. If the findings are not legit, it is certainly not due to deliberate misinformation or bravado on the part of the researchers.
And to coach: No, they are not affiliated with american libs just to make a story or whatever you sub90IQ moron ;D
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/19/human.ancestor/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/19/human.ancestor/index.html)
CNN) -- Scientists hailed Tuesday a 47-million-year-old fossil of an ancient "small cat"-sized primate as a possible common ancestor of monkeys, humans and other primates.
The fossil is believed to be an ancestor of monkeys, humans and other primates.
Scientists say the fossil, dubbed "Ida," is a transitional species, living around the time the primate lineage split into two groups: A line that would eventually produce humans and monkeys, and another that would give rise to primates such as lemurs.
I was kinda thinking that when I saw 47 million years. Not sure what loco was thinking. I guess he wasn't :)
-
Leave it to our resident fundy 'experts' who think a story with a talking snake and a magic apple is better evidence than real scientists working on real science. :D
-
I was kinda thinking that when I saw 47 million years. Not sure what loco was thinking. I guess he wasn't :)
What? All I said is that scientists have always said that humans "did not evolve from monkeys", that chimpanzees and humans are both apes and that they share a common ancestor, an ancient "ape-like" ancestor.
Monkeys are not apes. Chimpanzees and humans are not monkeys. But Chimpanzees and humans are apes.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In_New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_Mans_Earliest_Ancestor (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In_New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_Mans_Earliest_Ancestor)
The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years - but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York.
The discovery of the 95%-complete 'lemur monkey' - dubbed Ida - is described by experts as the "eighth wonder of the world".
Now they are saying that the missing link between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom is a monkey.
They are confusing the general public. Nothing about this fossil suggests it is anything other than an extinct, monkey like creature. Its appearance is far from chimpanzee, let alone human. I'm sure they'll be coming up with all kinds of theories to support this contradiction.
What's your problem with my comment, Hugo?
-
What? All I said is that scientists have always said that humans "did not evolve from monkeys", that chimpanzees and humans are both apes and that they share a common ancestor, an ancient "ape-like" ancestor.
Monkeys are not apes. Chimpanzees and humans are not monkeys. But Chimpanzees and humans are apes.
Now they are saying that the missing link between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom is a monkey.
They are confusing the general public. And now I'm sure they'll be coming up with all kinds of theories to support this.
What's your problem with my comment?
AND apes evolved from tree dwelling monkey like animals.
-
AND apes evolved from tree dwelling monkey like animals.
Hardly the missing link between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. :)
-
Hardly the missing link between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. :)
So are we back to talking snakes in magic gardens now?
-
So are we back to talking snakes in magic gardens now?
No. How does anything I have posted here have anything to do with talking snakes in magic gardens? Everything I've posted here is true, isn't it?
Oh, one more thing: This looks more like an animal that was quickly buried by a global flood. ;)
-
You could have undeniable evidence (not saying this one is, necessarily) but the "faithful" will simply ignore it. That's supposedly an admirable trait.
The more delusional, the better.
-
Oh, one more thing: This looks more like an animal that was quickly buried by a global flood. ;)
I like how you think you know more than the actual experts on the scene. wow.
-
You could have undeniable evidence (not saying this one is, necessarily) but the "faithful" will simply ignore it. That's supposedly an admirable trait.
The more delusional, the better.
Oh, so this isn't about science and discovery? This is about some agenda to "kill" faith in God? I see. :)
-
Oh, so this isn't about science and discovery? This is about some agenda to "kill" faith in God? I see. :)
If you're talking about agenda look no further than ANY organized religion. You are part of one.
The scientists are doing nothing more than working towards enlightenment and advancement of civilization. You and your group are hindering.
-
I like how you think you know more than the actual experts on the scene. wow.
How so? All I've done here is repeat what the "actual experts" have always said, except for the global flood comment. That was just for Deicide. :)
-
If you're talking about agenda look no further than ANY organized religion. You are part of one.
The scientists are doing nothing more than working towards enlightenment and advancement of civilization. You and your group are hindering.
You are the one turning this into a science vs. religion war. Look at my posts above and tell me how they are religious or un-scientific in nature?
By the way, I like your name!
-
You are the one turning this into a science vs. religion war. Look at my posts above and tell me how they are religious or un-scientific in nature?
By the way, I like your name!
You were quick to shoot the evidence down without actually giving it time. I, for one, don't think of anything yet of this fossil, but given time and scrutiny it has the potential of making it to our grandchildren's science textbooks. It could be as standard as the anatomy chart.
I like my name also. Too bad Joel has the least pages in the bible. >:(
-
So, the missing link is a monkey. Monkeys are not apes.
Funny how scientists for years have been trying to hammer it into the heads of the general population that monkeys are not apes and that humans DID NOT evolve from monkeys. Now they are going to confuse them by telling them that the missing link is a monkey. :)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html
unless I was confused I thought you were being sarcastic, if so I stand by my reply loco. If not, my bust. It sounded to me like you were putting forth an ah-ha, busted style sarcasm with link provided no less...
-
unless I was confused I thought you were being sarcastic, if so I stand by my reply loco. If not, my bust. It sounded to me like you were putting forth an ah-ha, busted style sarcasm with link provided no less...
I am not being sarcastic, and I stand my by post.
-
I am not being sarcastic, and I stand my by post.
What point? What's your point, now you have me fucking confused. You replied like I got it wrong, did I get it right what you said? If so your point in the post was not relevant since this little fella would be a common ancestor to all of them.
-
You were quick to shoot the evidence down without actually giving it time. I, for one, don't think of anything yet of this fossil, but given time and scrutiny it has the potential of making it to our grandchildren's science textbooks. It could be as standard as the anatomy chart.
I wasn't "quick to shoot the evidence down", though I am certainly free to do so if I wish to and it would have nothing to do with religion or with being un-scientific. Anybody, whether theist or atheist, scientist or not, has the right to question "the evidence." I was simply making a very valid comment.
And I personally believe already that no matter what, this fossil will probably be pictured in all the science textbooks for the next 100 years. Remember Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent drawings which appeared in Biology textbooks for 100 years?
Take a quick look at this thread:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=169896.msg2394423#msg2394423
I like my name also. Too bad Joel has the least pages in the bible. >:(
;D
-
What point? What's your point, now you have me fucking confused. You replied like I got it wrong, did I get it right what you said? If so your point in the post was not relevant since this little fella would be a common ancestor to all of them.
I don't get it Hugo. My post is very relevant. And if you are confused, that makes my point even more valid. Hugo, I can't make it any more clear than I already have. Deicide and Joel don't seem confused to me. You don't seem to understand my point, and I do not understand yours.
Are you saying that monkeys are apes? Are you saying that humans directly evolved from monkeys?
-
I don't get it Hugo. My post is very relevant. And if you are confused, that makes my point even more valid. Hugo, I can't make it any more clear than I already have. Deicide and Joel don't seem confused to me. You don't seem to understand my point, and I do not understand yours.
Are you saying that monkeys are apes? Are you saying that humans directly evolved from monkeys?
what the fuck jackass??? What the fuck exactly was the fucking point of that first post I replied to? Just fucking say it asshole.
-
what the fuck jackass??? What the fuck exactly was the fucking point of that first post I replied to? Just fucking say it asshole.
::)
Forget it.
-
::)
Forget it.
no, I won't. State it. You're looking busted now, so state it. I figured you were trying to pull a quick one when you realized I was right with the timeline making your point not relevant. If you bust out now, that's exactly what it looks like.
What was your point in the original post I replied to?
-
no, I won't. State it. You're looking busted now, so state it. I figured you were trying to pull a quick one when you realized I was right with the timeline making your point not relevant. If you bust out now, that's exactly what it looks like.
::)
Fine.
-
::)
Fine.
fine what? What was your point in the original post I replied to?
busted ;)
-
fine what? What was your point in the original post I replied to?
busted ;)
::)
Whatever you say, freaking psycho!
-
yea, p'wnd.... ;) Next time it might work out better just to admit your bust instead of seeking a cheap cover. I do...
-
yea, p'wnd.... ;) Next time it might work out better just to admit your bust instead of seeking a cheap cover. I do...
::)
You owned only yourself here, and you are coming off as an angry, uneducated, misinformed, under medicated psycho.
Next time it might work out better just to answer my questions, without the insults, without the meltdowns, and without going psycho on me. That way I can understand your point and answer your questions, and make my point more clear, if that were possible.
Good day, Hugo!
-
::)
You owned only yourself here, and you are coming off as an angry, uneducated, misinformed, under medicated psycho.
Next time it might work out better just to answer my questions, without the insults, without the meltdowns, and without going psycho on me. That way I can understand your point and answer your questions, and make my point more clear, if that were possible.
Good day, Hugo!
hahaha! what was your point in that post ;) some reason you are so dead set againt expanding ? ;)
-
hahaha! what was your point in that post ;) some reason you are so dead set againt expanding ? ;)
Yes
-
Yes
El perro rojo...
-
El perro rojo...
Que? Que es el perro rojo? ;D
-
BBC News
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
The fossil, nicknamed Ida, is claimed to be a "missing link" between today's higher primates - monkeys, apes and humans - and more distant relatives.
But some independent experts, awaiting an opportunity to see the new fossil, are sceptical of the claim.
And they have been critical of the hype surrounding the presentation of Ida...
...In addition, Ida bears "a close resemblance to ourselves" he said, with nails instead of claws, a grasping hand and an opposable thumb - like humans and some other primates. But he said some aspects of the teeth indicate she is not a direct ancestor - more of an "aunt" than a "grandmother".
"She belongs to the group from which higher primates and human beings developed but my impression is she is not on the direct line."
Independent experts are keen to see the new fossil but somewhat sceptical of any claim that it could be "a missing link".
Dr Henry Gee, a senior editor at the journal Nature, said the term itself was misleading and that the scientific community would need to evaluate its significance.
"It's extremely nice to have a new find and it will be well-studied," he said. But he added that it was not likely to be in the same league as major discoveries such as "Flores man" or feathered dinosaurs.
Dr Chris Beard, curator of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History and author of The Hunt for the Dawn Monkey, said he was "awestruck" by the publicity machine surrounding the new fossil.
He argued that it could damage the popularisation of science if the creature was not all that it was hyped up to be.
Dr Beard has not yet seen scientific details of the find but said that it would be very nice to have a beautiful new fossil from the Eocene and that Ida would be "a welcome new addition" to the world of early primates.
But he added: "I would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a potential ancestor to humans."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8057465.stm
-
Brian Switek, while describing the fossil as spectacularly complete and "the first time a fossil primate has been found exhibiting such extraordinary preservation," deplores the sensationalist coverage and a lack of adequate research in the published paper to back claims that it is an ancestor of the earliest anthropoids.
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/05/poor_poor_ida_or_overselling_a.php
-
Que? Que es el perro rojo? ;D
The red dog.... :o
-
bring it sloth girl!
hahaha!
-
3. I thought I read "Lucy" was proven to be a fraud?
Where did you read that?
-
The red dog.... :o
Si, pero porque dices el perro rojo? Is that some kind of saying or expression that I might not know about? :)
-
1. where does it say something about a beer mat? iono what it is but im curious...
Scientists say Ida - squashed to the thickness of a beer mat by the immense passage of time - is the most complete primate fossil ever found.
2. HUH?
"With her human-like nails instead of claws, and opposable big toes, she is placed at the very root of human evolution when early primates first developed features that would eventually develop into our own."
3. Lucy is absolutely not a fraud, she was in houston not but a yr or so ago at one of the museums here.
I read she was found w/o parts of her body that were added later to have her "fit" as a type of missing link. ...maybe it was some other fossil I'm thinking of that was proven to be a fraud?
4. I havent read the entire thing, but its obvious that this article doesnt go into depth as to why this species is the missing link it simply gives a few reasons without going into much detail. Ill wait until i see it text books that have been peer reviewed or articles that go into more depth that are peer reviewed.
Thanks for your answer tmt!
-
Where did you read that?
I think I first heard about it in college in an Anthropology class. But like I said in my post to tony, maybe I'm thinking of another fossil?
-
Si, pero porque dices el perro rojo? Is that some kind of saying or expression that I might not know about? :)
Exactemente.
-
hahaha!
You really should cut your toe nails or see a doctor. It's not healthy.
-
I think I first heard about it in college in an Anthropology class. But like I said in my post to tony, maybe I'm thinking of another fossil?
Perhaps you were thinking of the Piltdown Man?
I remember reading about that one when I was a kid, and had to google for it. But it was a big one (fraud that is).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
-
I think I first heard about it in college in an Anthropology class. But like I said in my post to tony, maybe I'm thinking of another fossil?
www.forerunner.com
Lucy Fails Test As Missing Link
By Editorial Staff
Published December 2007
The science of finding and identifying man’s “prehistoric ancestors” runs in a predictable pattern. A press conference is announced, the discovery of an ape-like “ancestor” revealed with an artist’s impression of what the creature looks like, and the discoverer becomes famous, earning money on lecture tours. The actual fossil bones are scanty and the imagination runs wild. Later, when more evidence is found, the “ancestor” turns out to be totally human or totally ape. The Neanderthal man is an example of one find that turns out to be totally human. Once this find is removed as an intermediate form, you can expect another great discovery to save the day. The latest discovery is “Lucy.”
If you are of the impression that there are many intermediate ancestors to man, take notice of the following statement by an expert in the field: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed with room to spare inside a single coffin.“1
This is still an exaggeration since it concedes that various specimens are part of human evolution. Australopithecines, for example, are not considered transitional forms anymore, but a branch of the primate evolutionary tree. True transitional forms are still missing. (“Transitional forms” refer to those creatures which represent intermediate states of development for a supposed ape-like ancestor down to man.)
But what about Lucy? This most recent discovery in Africa is being heralded by many as a true transitional form, typically a replacement for the outmoded australopithecines. Could this be hasty judgment? Let’s examine the evidence. Lucy is a partial fossil skeleton, about the size of a chimpanzee, supposedly female, discovered by paleontologist Dr. Donald Johanson on November 30, 1974, in Hadar, Ethiopia. It is more complete than most fossil finds in that about 40 percent of the bones of the body have been recovered.
The age is “estimated” to be 3.2 million years. The find includes a V-shaped jaw, part of hip and large bones, and other assorted bones with very little skull fragments.2 There were other finds at the same location, other skulls and U-shaped jawbones.
What evidence makes this creature a transitional form? According to Dr. Johanson, she walked upright! Her brain size is still small, ape-like in proportion, and most of the other features are predominantly ape-like. Some say that anatomically it is not different than a modern chimpanzee. The jaw, in particular, is distinct in that it is V-shaped, totally unlike human jaws.
And what evidence supports the idea that this creature walked upright? The angle that the upper leg bone makes with the lower leg bone at the knee. Looking head on, chimpanzee and gorilla legs have an angle of 0 degrees. Humans have an angle of about 9 degrees. If the angle is much greater it gives a “knocked kneed” condition in humans. Lucy and the australophithecines have a larger angle of about 15 degrees.3
Does this make her an upright walker? Present day orangutan and spider monkeys have the same angle as humans yet are extremely adept tree climbers. Some experts argue that the higher angle makes her a better climber.4 This appears to be a knee-jerk reaction rather than clear scientific thinking.
But hold on, the story gets better. Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy’s femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, “could have” walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; “How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?” (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, “Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?” Dr. Johanson: “Anatomical similarity.” (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).
After the meeting, the creationists talked with Dr. Johanson and continued the questions. Dr. Johanson argued that homology (particularly DNA homology) is good proof for evolution. Tom Willis responded that “similar structures nearly always have similar plans, (like) similar bridges have similar blue prints.” After more discussion along this line, Dr. Johanson gave this amazing reply: “If you don’t believe homology, then you don’t believe evolution, and evolution is a fact!“5
What about Lucy? Just another partial find of some primate, put together to look like a human ancestor? Could the wide separation of Lucy’s bones (200 feet by 1 mile) better point to a catastrophic scenario – such as a world wide flood?
What about Dr. Johanson’s credibility? To his credit, he does talk about the tentative nature of this type of science. But another evolutionary writer says this about the search for humanlike (homonid) bones; “When it comes to finding a new ‘star’ as our animal ancestor, there is no business like bone business.“6
Tom Willis, the creationist who attended the U. of Missouri lecture puts it this way, “By any reasonable standards, Johanson misrepresented the evidence and he did so for money! A businessman who made claims like those to sell his products would be charged with fraud rather than be paid an honorarium.“7 Regardless of the motives involved for finding our evolutionary “ancestor”, we can be sure that when Lucy is acknowledged as an evolutionary dead end, there will be another press conference with another knee-jerk explanation.
-
Perhaps you were thinking of the Piltdown Man?
I remember reading about that one when I was a kid, and had to google for it. But it was a big one (fraud that is).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
OK yeah!! Piltdown Man's explanation seems like more of what I remember...but I'm finding stuff that Lucy was kind of the same deal...but you're right, Piltdown seems more cut and dried as a fraud.
-
You really should cut your toe nails or see a doctor. It's not healthy.
Yes, I like to keep them just a bit shorter...like this:
-
there is already an entire fossil record that show logical progression from one species to the next, if this is real it will simply fall in line.
Then why all the hoopla over this "missing link"?
-
Then why all the hoopla over this "missing link"?
Good question Beach Bum!
Evolutionists seem to only tell the truth about the lack of "fossil missing links" once a new one is found.
Look at what they are saying now:
Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle.
Sir David Attenborough said
"The link they would have said up to now is missing - well it's no longer missing."
So are they admitting the evidence was missing until now, supposedly?
-
Good question Beach Bum!
Evolutionists seem to only tell the truth about the lack of "fossil missing links" once a new one is found.
Look at what they are saying now:
So are they admitting the evidence was missing until now, supposedly?
Didn't you used to believe in Evolution?
-
Didn't you used to believe in Evolution?
I accept evolution. It's a fact, microevolution that is. I just don't accept evolutionary change above the level of species.
-
I accept evolution. It's a fact, microevolution that is. I just don't accept evolutionary change above the level of species.
So you believe that tigers were always tigers and lions were always lions and they didn't descend from a common ancestor?
-
So you believe that tigers were always tigers and lions were always lions and they didn't descend from a common ancestor?
If you tell me that they share a common ancestor, a felinae-like ancestor, I accept that.
-
If you tell me that they share a common ancestor, a felinae-like ancestor, I accept that.
OK, then why don't you accept that humans, chimps and gorillas also share a common ancestor?
-
OK, then why don't you accept that humans, chimps and gorillas also share a common ancestor?
Because tigers and lions sharing a common felinae-like ancestor, or wolfs and dogs sharing a common canidae-like ancestor, or chimps and gorillas sharing a common ape-like ancestor is not evolutionary change above the level of species, or biological family. That I accept.
But I do not accept that humans are apes, or that humans are animals, for two reasons:
1. I accept the Bible creation account by faith. God created us humans in His own likeness.
2. There is no evidence that humans are apes, that humans are animals, or that we humans share a common ancestor with animals. Animals do not have reason, language, inquiry, wonder, longing, religion, morality, aesthetics, creativity, imagination, aspiration and humour.
At this point, it would take me as much faith to accept #2 as it would take me to accept #1.
-
Because tigers and lions sharing a common felinae-like ancestor, or wolfs and dogs sharing a common canidae-like ancestor, or chimps and gorillas sharing a common ape-like ancestor is not evolutionary change above the level of species, or biological family. That I accept.
But I do not accept that humans are apes, or that humans are animals, for two reasons:
1. I accept the Bible creation account by faith. God created us humans in His own likeness.
2. There is no evidence that humans are apes, that humans are animals, or that we humans share a common ancestor with animals. Animals do not have reason, language, inquiry, wonder, longing, religion, morality, aesthetics, creativity, imagination, aspiration and humour.
At this point, it would take me as much faith to accept #2 as it would take me to accept #1.
Way to ignore the mass of other pieces of evidence that show that we are animals and apes. Is it a mere coincidence that our DNA is so similar to that of a chimp's?
-
Way to ignore the mass of other pieces of evidence that show that we are animals and apes. Is it a mere coincidence that our DNA is so similar to that of a chimp's?
Is that your evidence? No, not a mere coincidence. Our DNA is similar because we share a common designer and creator.
Besides, we are physically similar. So it makes sense that our DNA would be similar too when it comes to our structure. Similar buildings have similar blue-prints. Similar bridges have similar blue-prints.
Another thing is that there is much we still don't know about DNA. So we may soon find that human DNA and chimp DNA are not so similar after all.
If human and chimp DNA are so similar, why are there so many physical and mental differences between them?
"When studying the human genome and its similarity to that of the chimp, scientists have recently concluded that 96% of our genome is similar. However, most people are unaware that this percent pertains to the regions of our DNA that result in proteins. It seems logical that if a protein performs a certain function in one organism, then that same protein should perform the same function in a variety of organisms. This is evidence for a common designer as much as for a common ancestor. But most of the DNA sequence performs an unknown function and has been largely dismissed as “junk DNA.” However, increasing evidence supports the view that “junk” DNA performs an important role. For example, a recent report unexpectedly found specific sequence patterns in “junk” DNA which scientists have termed “pyknons.”1 It has been suggested that these pyknons may be important in determining when and where proteins are made.
Within this “junk DNA” there may be large differences between man and chimp. The areas of greatest difference appear to involve regions which are structurally different (commonly called “rearrangements”) and areas of heterochromatin (tightly packed DNA).
Here are some other interesting differences between the human and chimp genomes which are often not reported:
- The amount of chimp DNA is 12% larger than what it is in humans.
- Several hundred million bases (individual components of the DNA) of the chimp genome are still unanalyzed.
- In many areas of the DNA sequence, major “rearrangements” seem apparent. These account for perhaps 4–10% dissimilarity between chimps and humans.
- Chimps have 23 chromosomes and humans have only 22 (excluding sex chromosomes for both species).
Thus, the physical and mental differences between humans and chimps are most likely due to the differences in purpose and function of the so-called junk DNA. This understanding should leave us more mindful of the awesome complexity of the Creator and His creation of DNA.
Dr. Georgia Purdom earned her doctorate from The Ohio State University in molecular genetics and spent six years as a professor of biology at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University. Dr. Purdom is also a member of the American Society for Microbiology and American Society for Cell Biology."
Footnotes:
1. Rigoutsos, Isidore, et al., Short blocks from the noncoding parts of the human genome have instances within nearly all known genes and relate to biological processes, PNAS 103(17):6605–10.
-
Is that your evidence? No, not a mere coincidence. Our DNA is similar because we share a common designer and creator.
Besides, we are physically similar. So it makes sense that our DNA would be similar too when it comes to our structure. Similar buildings have similar blue-prints. Similar bridges have similar blue-prints.
Another thing is that there is much we still don't know about DNA. So we may soon find that human DNA and chimp DNA are not so similar after all.
If human and chimp DNA are so similar, why are there so many physical and mental differences between them?
"When studying the human genome and its similarity to that of the chimp, scientists have recently concluded that 96% of our genome is similar. However, most people are unaware that this percent pertains to the regions of our DNA that result in proteins. It seems logical that if a protein performs a certain function in one organism, then that same protein should perform the same function in a variety of organisms. This is evidence for a common designer as much as for a common ancestor. But most of the DNA sequence performs an unknown function and has been largely dismissed as “junk DNA.” However, increasing evidence supports the view that “junk” DNA performs an important role. For example, a recent report unexpectedly found specific sequence patterns in “junk” DNA which scientists have termed “pyknons.”1 It has been suggested that these pyknons may be important in determining when and where proteins are made.
Within this “junk DNA” there may be large differences between man and chimp. The areas of greatest difference appear to involve regions which are structurally different (commonly called “rearrangements”) and areas of heterochromatin (tightly packed DNA).
Here are some other interesting differences between the human and chimp genomes which are often not reported:
- The amount of chimp DNA is 12% larger than what it is in humans.
- Several hundred million bases (individual components of the DNA) of the chimp genome are still unanalyzed.
- In many areas of the DNA sequence, major “rearrangements” seem apparent. These account for perhaps 4–10% dissimilarity between chimps and humans.
- Chimps have 23 chromosomes and humans have only 22 (excluding sex chromosomes for both species).
Thus, the physical and mental differences between humans and chimps are most likely due to the differences in purpose and function of the so-called junk DNA. This understanding should leave us more mindful of the awesome complexity of the Creator and His creation of DNA.
Dr. Georgia Purdom earned her doctorate from The Ohio State University in molecular genetics and spent six years as a professor of biology at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University. Dr. Purdom is also a member of the American Society for Microbiology and American Society for Cell Biology."
Footnotes:
1. Rigoutsos, Isidore, et al., Short blocks from the noncoding parts of the human genome have instances within nearly all known genes and relate to biological processes, PNAS 103(17):6605–10.
Does this study conclude that the creation myth found in the Bible is the logical conclusion for differences? We separated from a common ancestor over 6 million years ago, of course there will be differences.
Are all these top scientists throughout the world in the best of universities and institutions merely deceiving themselves? Should they be concluding that that Genesis is the true origin of all life?
-
Does this study conclude that the creation myth found in the Bible is the logical conclusion for differences? We separated from a common ancestor over 6 million years ago, of course there will be differences.
Are all these top scientists throughout the world in the best of universities and institutions merely deceiving themselves? Should they be concluding that that Genesis is the true origin of all life?
Not the conclusion necessarily, and not the point. The fact still remains that there is no proof that humans are apes, that humans are animals, or that we humans share a common ancestor with animals. Again, animals do not have reason, language, inquiry, wonder, longing, religion, morality, aesthetics, creativity, imagination, aspiration and humour.
The fact still remains that at this point, it would take me as much faith to accept the above as it takes me to believe in God.
-
Not the conclusion necessarily, and not the point. The fact still remains that there is no proof that humans are apes, that humans are animals, or that we humans share a common ancestor with animals. Again, animals do not have reason, language, inquiry, wonder, longing, religion, morality, aesthetics, creativity, imagination, aspiration and humour.
The fact still remains that at this point, it would take me as much faith to accept the above as it takes me to believe in God.
So what are all these scientists doing then? Wasting their time? Should they just be consulting the Bible?
-
So what are all these scientists doing then? Wasting their time? Should they just be consulting the Bible?
Studying DNA is definitely not a waste of time, but jumping to conclusions and saying that similarities in tested portions of human and chimp DNA is definite proof that humans are animals and that humans share a common ancestor with chimps is stretching it.
If their agenda is nothing but science and discovery, then no, they are not wasting their time. But since some of them say their agenda is "to kill religion", then they are wasting their time. Richard Dawkins has said that his goal for teaching evolution is "to kill religion." He has also said that as a scientist, he is very hostile toward a "rival doctrine."
There is also a lot of money involved here. Whether this new found fossil is "the missing link" or not, there is lots of money to be made here.
And since when is truth a democracy?
-
Studying DNA is definitely not a waste of time, but jumping to conclusions and saying that similarities in tested portions of human and chimp DNA is definite proof that humans are animals and that humans share a common ancestor with chimps is stretching it.
If their agenda is nothing but science and discovery, then no, they are not wasting their time. But since some of them say their agenda is "to kill religion", then they are wasting their time. Richard Dawkins has said that his goal for teaching evolution is "to kill religion." He has also said that as a scientist, he is very hostile toward a "rival doctrine."
There is also a lot of money involved here. Whether this new found fossil is "the missing link" or not, there is lots of money to be made here.
And since when is truth a democracy?
why did the designer do such a bad job on us?
-
why did the designer do such a bad job on us?
What do you mean?
-
What do you mean?
STUPID DESIGN
-
2. HUH?
"With her human-like nails instead of claws, and opposable big toes, she is placed at the very root of human evolution when early primates first developed features that would eventually develop into our own."
3. Lucy is absolutely not a fraud, she was in houston not but a yr or so ago at one of the museums here.
I read she was found w/o parts of her body that were added later to have her "fit" as a type of missing link. ...maybe it was some other fossil I'm thinking of that was proven to be a fraud?
4. I havent read the entire thing, but its obvious that this article doesnt go into depth as to why this species is the missing link it simply gives a few reasons without going into much detail. Ill wait until i see it text books that have been peer reviewed or articles that go into more depth that are peer reviewed.
Thanks for your answer tmt!
The nail thing as opposed to claws is a big deal believe it or not, it leads to a whole host of conclusions and is generally a feature of younger species in our lineage.
oh i thought you were asking if lucy the fossil was a fraud, i was never taught in any of my anthro classes that lucy was a the "missing link" so to say...yes bones had to be filled in which is the case with most fossils as most fossils arent always very well preserved but they do have a team of scientists and anthropologists that do so according to the fossil at hand and its features etc...its not some random ppl filling an agenda to my knowledge
-
STUPID DESIGN
Deicide, you got these from Neil deGrasse Tyson, didn't you?
Well, here is the thing, why would someone like you who accepts evolution have a problem with these? Aren't you supposed to believe that as living things evolve they do more with less parts? So if dolphins have two holes, one to breath and another one to eat, aren't we more advanced since we can do both with a single hole? Aren't we advanced because we can piss and ejaculate out of a single hole as opposed to having one hole for each? We accomplish more with less parts. That's efficient. That's a good thing.
-
Loco evolution doesnt state that as we evolve we do more with less parts...it states that those who are best adapted to the enviroment will survive and those traits that allowed them to survive will become more prevelant. In truth the most inefficient animal on the planet given the right enviroment could replace humans at the top.
-
Loco evolution doesnt state that as we evolve we do more with less parts...it states that those who are best adapted to the enviroment will survive and those traits that allowed them to survive will become more prevelant. In truth the most inefficient animal on the planet given the right enviroment could replace humans at the top.
Unnecessary parts are discarded overtime. Supposedly, early humans or humanoids allegedly had tails, and thumbs on their feet, like apes do.
-
Unnecessary parts are discarded overtime. Supposedly, early humans or humanoids allegedly had tails, and thumbs on their feet, like apes do.
LOL your missing the point, evolution isnt moving towards one end, it seems to me that you think that evolution is creating some superbeing and thats not the case. Its not that the parts where uneccesary its that they werent best suited for the enviroments in which they where present so other variations of such traits survived as opposed to those.
-
LOL your missing the point, evolution isnt moving towards one end, it seems to me that you think that evolution is creating some superbeing and thats not the case. Its not that the parts where uneccesary its that they werent best suited for the enviroments in which they where present so other variations of such traits survived as opposed to those.
No, that's not what I think. Unnecessary, not best suited, whatever. Tyson was saying that if we are designed, then we are designed poorly because, unlike dolphins who have two holes, one to breath and one to eat, we only have one hole for both functions. I disagree with Tyson that this implies poor design.
-
No, that's not what I think. Unnecessary, not best suited, whatever. Tyson was saying that if we are designed, then we are designed poorly because, unlike dolphins who have two holes, one to breath and one to eat, we only have one hole for both functions. I disagree with Tyson that this implies poor design.
poor design is in the eye of the beholder loco our design also lends itself to choking on food...
-
poor design is in the eye of the beholder loco our design also lends itself to choking on food...
Sure!
-
Sure!
Your god=bad engineer
-
Your god=bad engineer
I don't think so, especially when I look at Jessica Alba.
-
I don't think so, especially when I look at Jessica Alba.
That is NOT a good argument.
-
I don't think so, especially when I look at Jessica Alba.
god is logically impossible as you describe him, needless to say if all-powerful and all-knowing was possible, it is not, then birth defects need not happen, disease need not happen.
Our eyes are garbage, the majority of the population are myopic at young ages, there is no point in this.
-
god is logically impossible as you describe him, needless to say if all-powerful and all-knowing was possible, it is not, then birth defects need not happen, disease need not happen.
Our eyes are garbage, the majority of the population are myopic at young ages, there is no point in this.
You=good genetics.
-
god is logically impossible as you describe him, needless to say if all-powerful and all-knowing was possible, it is not, then birth defects need not happen, disease need not happen.
Our eyes are garbage, the majority of the population are myopic at young ages, there is no point in this.
or evil of any kind for that matter...
-
god is logically impossible as you describe him, needless to say if all-powerful and all-knowing was possible, it is not, then birth defects need not happen, disease need not happen.
Our eyes are garbage, the majority of the population are myopic at young ages, there is no point in this.
I know that you think this is silly, but as a Christian, I believe that all these are the result of sin entering this once "perfect" world.
-
I know that you think this is silly, but as a Christian, I believe that all these are the result of sin entering this once "perfect" world.
Sin=bad genetics
-
I don't think so, especially when I look at Jessica Alba.
lol. :D
-
If God can do anything, can He make a mountain which is too heavy for Him to lift?
-
I know that you think this is silly, but as a Christian, I believe that all these are the result of sin entering this once "perfect" world.
Loco the world was created by GOD who is all good and all powerful correct? if something that was created by a being that is all good and all powerful there would be no evil...free will which i know is your answer to this isnt in the equation b/c before we have free will we have a All powerful and All good God and being bound by that he cannot logically make anything with the capability of evil.
-
Loco the world was created by GOD who is all good and all powerful correct? if something that was created by a being that is all good and all powerful there would be no evil...free will which i know is your answer to this isnt in the equation b/c before we have free will we have a All powerful and All good God and being bound by that he cannot logically make anything with the capability of evil.
My son, I am glad to see the seeds of reason grow in you. ;D
-
Loco the world was created by GOD who is all good and all powerful correct? if something that was created by a being that is all good and all powerful there would be no evil...free will which i know is your answer to this isnt in the equation b/c before we have free will we have a All powerful and All good God and being bound by that he cannot logically make anything with the capability of evil.
this was copied and pasted from a source... I couldn't have said it better.
It is impossible for religious "free will" and an omniscience being to co-exist. If god knows everything, then he knows the outcome of every decision, prior to it being made. If the outcome of any decision is known or predetermined, prior to the decision of the person making it, then there was no choice or “free will” at all. “Free will” can only exist where the outcome is not known, predestined or predetermined.
-
This is why I dont take a literal view of the Bible...You wont believe how many friends ive explained that too who refuse to see my point...
-
This is why I dont take a literal view of the Bible...You wont believe how many friends ive explained that too who refuse to see my point...
Thankfully I almost never have these conversations in life.
-
This is why I dont take a literal view of the Bible...You wont believe how many friends ive explained that too who refuse to see my point...
That's the beauty of a forum. You can get down and dirty and have the conversations you always wanted to have without someone getting seriously butt hurt.
-
I like how you think you know more than the actual experts on the scene. wow.
He does that in quite a few areas. ;)
-
He does that in quite a few areas. ;)
Jag is referring to her Multi Level Marketing scam. :)
-
Jag is referring to her Multi Level Marketing scam. :)
Está loco cuánto energía ella tiene, especialmente en vista de nadie cuida por lo que está vendiendo.
-
Está loco cuánto energía ella tiene, especialmente en vista de nadie cuida por lo que está vendiendo.
Ja ja ja. ;D
-
Está loco cuánto energía ella tiene, especialmente en vista de nadie cuida por lo que está vendiendo.
Yo soy el conejo Energizer Bunny! :D
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/EnergizerBunny.jpg)
Grown men who have to look their teenage daughters in the eyes and tell them they can't go to the prom because despite being away from home for the past 3 months, ...he didn't have enough money to buy her a prom dress, ...they care! Do you know what that does to a man ... a grown man, when he has to do that? Do you know what that does to a 17 year old girl when she has to hear her father say that?
-
If the outcome of any decision is known or predetermined, prior to the decision of the person making it, then there was no choice or “free will” at all. “Free will” can only exist where the outcome is not known, predestined or predetermined.
I don't see how the outcome of a decision being "known" is the same as being "predestined or predetermined" thus resulting in absence of free will.
I think your argument would make more sense if you took out the word "known."
-
I don't see how the outcome of a decision being "known" is the same as being "predestined or predetermined" thus resulting in absence of free will.
I think your argument would make more sense if you took out the word "known."
'known,' 'predestined/predetermined' are basically the same when it comes to God. You may not know it but 'He' already knows every single move or decision(and the outcome) you will ever have to make in your life, so how is it free will? The outcome is already 'known' by God.
It is just one of the many God paradoxes.
Yes or No... If God is almighty, can he create a god that is more powerful than him?
-
'known,' 'predestined/predetermined' are basically the same when it comes to God. You may not know it but 'He' already knows every single move or decision(and the outcome) you will ever have to make in your life, so how is it free will? The outcome is already 'known' by God.
It is just one of the many God paradoxes.
Yes or No... If God is almighty, can he create a god that is more powerful than him?
Or a boulder so heavy even he can't lift it?
Or can he kill himself?
-
'known,' 'predestined/predetermined' are basically the same when it comes to God. You may not know it but 'He' already knows every single move or decision(and the outcome) you will ever have to make in your life, so how is it free will? The outcome is already 'known' by God.
It is just one of the many God paradoxes.
Yes or No... If God is almighty, can he create a god that is more powerful than him?
Omnipotence paradoxes like the above have been around for ages. Can the people of any nation be self-governed? If so, can they appoint a dictator to govern them, whom they cannot govern?
Our imperfect and limited human languages cannot meaningfully address the concept of omnipotence itself.
Biblical omnipotence does not mean that there is nothing God cannot do. It means that God will never fail at what He sets Himself to do.
Even the Bible says there are things that God cannot do:
2 Timothy 2:13
if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.
Romans 6:9
For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.
Galatians 6:7
Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.
James 1:13
When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
Titus 1:2
a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time
-
Omnipotence paradoxes like the above have been around for ages. Can the people of any nation be self-governed? If so, can they appoint a dictator to govern them, whom they cannot govern?
Our imperfect and limited human languages cannot meaningfully address the concept of omnipotence itself.
Biblical omnipotence does not mean that there is nothing God cannot do. It means that God will never fail at what He sets Himself to do.
Even the Bible says there are things that God cannot do:
2 Timothy 2:13
if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.
Romans 6:9
For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.
Galatians 6:7
Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.
James 1:13
When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
Titus 1:2
a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time
So the bible is saying he isn't the Almighty and all powerful.
Can't you see that any one of these paradoxes (no matter how old they are) trumps any logical argument anyone can put up for an omnipotent, omniscient, almighty god?
-
So the bible is saying he isn't the Almighty and all powerful.
Can't you see that any one of these paradoxes (no matter how old they are) trumps any logical argument anyone can put up for an omnipotent, omniscient, almighty god?
Faith=not logical=thus, not relevant
-
So the bible is saying he isn't the Almighty and all powerful.
No. That's not what the Bible is saying.
God cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character, but God can do anything that He determines to do.
Can't you see that any one of these paradoxes (no matter how old they are) trumps any logical argument anyone can put up for an omnipotent, omniscient, almighty god?
No.
God is omnipotent. Can God give up His omnipotence, after which He would no longer be omnipotent and would be unable to regain His omnipotence? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. Either way, God has not done that and will not do that. Therefore, God remains omnipotent.
The question or the answer will not change a Christian's faith, neither will it make an atheist believe in God. It neither proves that there is no God, nor does it prove that there is. It's pointless and irrelevant.
-
Good posts loco!
'known,' 'predestined/predetermined' are basically the same when it comes to God. You may not know it but 'He' already knows every single move or decision(and the outcome) you will ever have to make in your life, so how is it free will? The outcome is already 'known' by God.
It is just one of the many God paradoxes.
But "knowing" the outcome does not equal causing the outcome.
"Predestining/predetermining" fits causing better.
-
Good posts loco!
But "knowing" the outcome does not equal causing the outcome.
"Predestining/predetermining" fits causing better.
LOL. I love fundamentalists' mind wriggling... :D
-
LOL. I love fundamentalists' mind wriggling... :D
How about atheists' mind wriggling?
"If God is almighty, can he create a god that is more powerful than him?" ::)
-
Good posts loco!
Thanks STella! ;D
-
How about atheists' mind wriggling?
"If God is almighty, can he create a god that is more powerful than him?" ::)
it's a simple yes or no question.
-
it's a simple yes or no question.
Yo=yes+no
-
No. That's not what the Bible is saying.
God cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character, but God can do anything that He determines to do.
No.
God is omnipotent. Can God give up His omnipotence, after which He would no longer be omnipotent and would be unable to regain His omnipotence? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. Either way, God has not done that and will not do that. Therefore, God remains omnipotent.
The question or the answer will not change a Christian's faith, neither will it make an atheist believe in God. It neither proves that there is no God, nor does it prove that there is. It's pointless and irrelevant.
it proves that an all-powerful, all-knowing god is not rational nor logical is what is proves. Based on the rules of logic it is impossible.
"God is omnipotent. Can God give up His omnipotence, after which He would no longer be omnipotent and would be unable to regain His omnipotence? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. Either way, God has not done that and will not do that. Therefore, God remains omnipotent."
you have no idea if the above is the case, simply because i dont know and you dont have special powers that i do not have.
-
No. That's not what the Bible is saying.
God cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character, but God can do anything that He determines to do.
No.
God is omnipotent. Can God give up His omnipotence, after which He would no longer be omnipotent and would be unable to regain His omnipotence? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. Either way, God has not done that and will not do that. Therefore, God remains omnipotent.
The question or the answer will not change a Christian's faith, neither will it make an atheist believe in God. It neither proves that there is no God, nor does it prove that there is. It's pointless and irrelevant.
-
Why are many Christians so suspicious of science?
Wouldn't it be great for them if Christianity was proven to be a fraud?
That way they could stop believing something that isn't correct.
Just as I, as an Atheist, would welcome any evidence that there is a God. Then I would become a believer in an instant.
-
it proves that an all-powerful, all-knowing god is not rational nor logical is what is proves. Based on the rules of logic it is impossible.
"God is omnipotent. Can God give up His omnipotence, after which He would no longer be omnipotent and would be unable to regain His omnipotence? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. Either way, God has not done that and will not do that. Therefore, God remains omnipotent."
you have no idea if the above is the case, simply because i dont know and you dont have special powers that i do not have.
I thought we were talking about the God of the Bible. As a Biblical Christian, I'm basing the above on the Bible.
-
Why are many Christians so suspicious of science?
Wouldn't it be great for them if Christianity was proven to be a fraud?
That way they could stop believing something that isn't correct.
Just as I, as an Atheist, would welcome any evidence that there is a God. Then I would become a believer in an instant.
Christians are not suspicious of science. But many Christians are suspicious of biased scientists whose only agenda is to "kill" faith in God, to make money and to get recognition at any cost.
And Christians are not the only ones. I've already posted articles about secular, main stream scientists who are viewing this alleged missing link with suspicion.
-
LOL. I love fundamentalists' mind wriggling... :D
???
I know if I throw a 5# rock at a window w/1/2 in. glass the glass will break. I still have to make the decision to throw the rock.
-
Christians are not suspicious of science. But many Christians are suspicious of biased scientists whose only agenda is to "kill" faith in God, to make money and to get recognition at any cost.
And Christians are not the only ones. I've already posted articles about secular, main stream scientists who are viewing this alleged missing link with suspicion.
no real scientist bases his work on such, you are brainswashed my friend.
-
no real scientist bases his work on such, you are brainswashed my friend.
Richard Dawkins has said that his goal for teaching evolution is "to kill religion." He has also said that as a scientist, he is very hostile toward a "rival doctrine." That's a biased scientist.
When the scientist and Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître first proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory, Einstein initially dismissed the theory without thought or consideration, in part because it came from a priest and because it implied "Creation" and a "Creator." Einstein was quick to endorse both Lemaître and his theory only after Hubble confirmed the theory.
Imagine that, the Big Bang theory...first proposed by a God believing church priest, but dismissed by Einstein initially because of an anti-religion/anti-church bias.
-
Richard Dawkins has said that his goal for teaching evolution is "to kill religion." He has also said that as a scientist, he is very hostile toward a "rival doctrine." That's a biased scientist.
When the scientist and Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître first proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory, Einstein initially dismissed the theory without thought or consideration, in part because it came from a priest and because it implied "Creation" and a "Creator." Einstein was quick to endorse both Lemaître and his theory only after Hubble confirmed the theory.
Imagine that, the Big Bang theory...first proposed by a God believing church priest, but dismissed by Einstein initially because of an anti-religion/anti-church bias.
there is certainly more to the story here. Just like when you guys posted the stuff about expelled, only to find out that the film is 100% lies and propaganda. Or kent hovind, a criminal and known liar etc etc........
find the entire dawkins quote if you would.
-
there is certainly more to the story here. Just like when you guys posted the stuff about expelled, only to find out that the film is 100% lies and propaganda. Or kent hovind, a criminal and known liar etc etc........
There is more to which story?
Who is Kent Hovind?
find the entire dawkins quote if you would.
You really deny that Dawkins said these things? I'll find the YouTube videos later so that you can see and hear for yourself.
-
AURORA FORUM AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY
9 March 2008
AGAINST IGNORANCE:
SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
A CONVERSATION WITH RICHARD DAWKINS AND LAWRENCE KRAUSS
Page 14
http://auroraforum.stanford.edu/files/transcripts/Aurora_Forum_Transcript_Richard_Dawkins_Lawrence_Krauss_03.09.08.pdf
Krauss: No, you see this isn’t the Church of England. [Laughter] No, it’s true. These
kids, every Sunday, from the time they’re too young to think—and that’s why both you
and I absolutely agree that it’s sort of child abuse to subject children to that,
[Laughter/Applause] but they are told that. They are told that in this country, and that is
why many of them just have this gut reaction. Because if I have to be an atheist to
believe in evolution, I clearly am not going to believe in evolution because it’s a threat to
my belief, but if you just tell them it doesn’t require that, then it is eye-opening and
useful. At the same time, I think it’s disingenuous not to point out that there are tensions,
and our mutual friend Steven Weinberg, another physicist, has put it, I think, most
eloquently by saying that science doesn’t make it impossible to believe in God. It just
makes it possible to not believe in God.
Dawkins: Yes. Well, I want to go further than that. As you were talking then, I thought,
I could put it exactly the other way around. You can go to these people in their churches
and say, “Look, you don’t have to be an atheist to believe in evolution.” Now, if your
aim is to propagandize in favor of evolution, that obviously is the best seduction
technique. But if your aim is to kill religion, as mine is, [Laughter] then since evolution
is manifestly true, then if there are people out there who really believe that if you are an
evolutionist you’ve got to be an atheist, then all I’ve got to do is to persuade them of
evolution, which should be comparatively easy since the evidence is overwhelming, and
I’ll turn them all into atheists. [Laughter]
-
Richard Dawkins has said that his goal for teaching evolution is "to kill religion." He has also said that as a scientist, he is very hostile toward a "rival doctrine." That's a biased scientist.
When the scientist and Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître first proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory, Einstein initially dismissed the theory without thought or consideration, in part because it came from a priest and because it implied "Creation" and a "Creator." Einstein was quick to endorse both Lemaître and his theory only after Hubble confirmed the theory.
Imagine that, the Big Bang theory...first proposed by a God believing church priest, but dismissed by Einstein initially because of an anti-religion/anti-church bias.
You are highlighting the fact that LeMaitre was a priest, instead of also being a physicist, and a brilliant one at that. Any new theory that gets presented WILL get much scrutiny regardless of their stature.
Einstein found it suspect because he deemed it unjustifiable from a physical point of view. On the other hand, Einstein encouraged Lemaître to look into the possibility of models of non-isotropic expansion, so it's clear he was not altogether dismissive of the concept. He also appreciated Lemaître's argument that a static-Einstein model of the universe could not be sustained indefinitely into the past.After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and is supposed to have said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened." However there is disagreement over the reporting of this quote in the newspapers of the time, and it may be that Einstein was not actually referring to the theory as a whole but to Lemaître's proposal that cosmic rays may in fact be the left over artifacts of the initial "explosion." Later research on cosmic rays by Robert Millikan would undercut this proposal, however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html
And how did you come up to the conclusion that Einstein dismissed him because of his bias?
-
It's well known that Dawkins wants to eliminate religion. A lot of people are with him, not just atheists. Organized religion does more harm than good. Why do people need religion to have a personal relationship with God? Why would a priest/pastor/imam know more about heaven or hell than a regular guy? Has he actually been to those places? If not, then why would anyone believe him?
-
AURORA FORUM AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY
9 March 2008
AGAINST IGNORANCE:
SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
A CONVERSATION WITH RICHARD DAWKINS AND LAWRENCE KRAUSS
Page 14
http://auroraforum.stanford.edu/files/transcripts/Aurora_Forum_Transcript_Richard_Dawkins_Lawrence_Krauss_03.09.08.pdf
Krauss: No, you see this isn’t the Church of England. [Laughter] No, it’s true. These
kids, every Sunday, from the time they’re too young to think—and that’s why both you
and I absolutely agree that it’s sort of child abuse to subject children to that,
[Laughter/Applause] but they are told that. They are told that in this country, and that is
why many of them just have this gut reaction. Because if I have to be an atheist to
believe in evolution, I clearly am not going to believe in evolution because it’s a threat to
my belief, but if you just tell them it doesn’t require that, then it is eye-opening and
useful. At the same time, I think it’s disingenuous not to point out that there are tensions,
and our mutual friend Steven Weinberg, another physicist, has put it, I think, most
eloquently by saying that science doesn’t make it impossible to believe in God. It just
makes it possible to not believe in God.
Dawkins: Yes. Well, I want to go further than that. As you were talking then, I thought,
I could put it exactly the other way around. You can go to these people in their churches
and say, “Look, you don’t have to be an atheist to believe in evolution.” Now, if your
aim is to propagandize in favor of evolution, that obviously is the best seduction
technique. But if your aim is to kill religion, as mine is, [Laughter] then since evolution
is manifestly true, then if there are people out there who really believe that if you are an
evolutionist you’ve got to be an atheist, then all I’ve got to do is to persuade them of
evolution, which should be comparatively easy since the evidence is overwhelming, and
I’ll turn them all into atheists. [Laughter]
are you reading the same quote as me, he is stating the truth that evolution is a fact, a demonstratable fact backed by mounds of evidence. So he is suggesting that if you were to say that you cannot beleive both, it would be easy to disprove god etc.. by proving evolution. Creationism or intelligent design and evolution are mutually exclusive, you cant literally beleive that the earth is 6000 years old and beleive in evolution, they are incompatible.
he is also halfway joking hence the laughter. He doesnt do science to disprove religion, his previous work has nothing to do with it at all. He is passionate about truth something religion fails to provide.
-
It's well known that Dawkins wants to eliminate religion. A lot of people are with him, not just atheists. Organized religion does more harm than good. Why do people need religion to have a personal relationship with God? Why would a priest/pastor/imam know more about heaven or hell than a regular guy? Has he actually been to those places? If not, then why would anyone believe him?
-
Wow, I didn't know it's cherry season. You do a lot of cherry-picking.
-
Wow, I didn't know it's cherry season. You do a lot of cherry-picking.
What are you talking about, Joel? I was going to say to Necrosis that it is well known that Dawkins wants to destroy religion, but you said it first.
When Richard Dawkins says that his aim is to kill religion and to turn all into atheists, he is not joking. His words and his actions the last few years have made that very clear.
Richard Dawkins' attitude and words only make Christians suspicious of biased scientists like him.
-
What are you talking about, Joel? I was going to say to Necrosis that it is well known that Dawkins wants to destroy religion, but you said it first.
When Richard Dawkins says that his aim is to kill religion and to turn all into atheists, he is not joking. His words and his actions the last few years have made that very clear.
Richard Dawkins' attitude and words only make Christians suspicious of biased scientists like him.
so? what does that have to do with the research he has done? i know nothing. it is his own personal agenda, it doesnt influence his science, his work has nothing to do with it if you look.
-
So what are all these scientists doing then? Wasting their time? Should they just be consulting the Bible?
Sure, there were many times when "they" could have consulted the Bible, and been in the know. Too bad for them! There were allot of ancients, that would have saved a many lives of their own, if only they would have listened to the word.
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
it's a simple yes or no question.
Yes. Would He, no. This is one of those questions, Jesus warned about.
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
Why are many Christians so suspicious of science?
Wouldn't it be great for them if Christianity was proven to be a fraud?
That way they could stop believing something that isn't correct.
Just as I, as an Atheist, would welcome any evidence that there is a God. Then I would become a believer in an instant.
Christians are not suspicious of science. But many Christians are suspicious of biased scientists whose only agenda is to "kill" faith in God, to make money and to get recognition at any cost.
Primate fossil 'not an ancestor'
BBC News
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
The exceptionally well-preserved fossil primate known as "Ida" is not a missing link as some have claimed, according to an analysis in the journal Nature.
The research is the first independent assessment of the claims made in a scientific paper and a television documentary earlier this year.
Dr Erik Seiffert says that Ida belonged to a group more closely linked to lemurs than to monkeys, apes or us.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8318643.stm
Fossil hailed as Man's ancestor is 'not even close relative'
From The Times
October 22, 2009
Darwinius masillae, the primitive primate that was unveiled to the world with huge fanfare and a Sir David Attenborough documentary in May, seems now to have been less of a missing link than an evolutionary dead end.
Far from being an ancestor to humans, the lemur-like creature from 47 million years ago belongs to an entirely different branch of the primate family tree that has left no known descendants, research has indicated.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6884359.ece
-
I think Loco's point is simply this:
Every time we turn around, evolutionists claim that they "finally" found the missing link, only to later retract that statement and claim that the fossil is NOT such a link.
A prime example of this happened about 100 years ago. Has anyone ever heard of the coelacanth fish?
Well, evolutionists once that that the coelacanth (or "Zeke", as I like to call it) was extinct. Based on the fossil findings, they made up all manner of wild claims, asserting that this fish's fins were used to walk on the surface of the water and "evolve" into legs to walk on land.
It turns out that these fish weren't so extinct after all. There were found, in a certain region of the world: Alive, well, and (to the chagrin of evolutionists).......STILL FISH!!
They had virtually none of the characteristics that evolutionists assigned to them. That tends to be the case with "living fossils".
-
I think Loco's point is simply this:
Every time we turn around, evolutionists claim that they "finally" found the missing link, only to later retract that statement and claim that the fossil is NOT such a link.
A prime example of this happened about 100 years ago. Has anyone ever heard of the coelacanth fish?
Well, evolutionists once that that the coelacanth (or "Zeke", as I like to call it) was extinct. Based on the fossil findings, they made up all manner of wild claims, asserting that this fish's fins were used to walk on the surface of the water and "evolve" into legs to walk on land.
It turns out that these fish weren't so extinct after all. There were found, in a certain region of the world: Alive, well, and (to the chagrin of evolutionists).......STILL FISH!!
They had virtually none of the characteristics that evolutionists assigned to them. That tends to be the case with "living fossils".
Exactly!
Hey MCWAY! Good to see you on the board again! Long time no read! Hope you and your family had a great Thanksgiving Day, and I hope you have a Merry Christmas too! ;D
The board has been kind of dead since Obama became President of the USA. People don't come here to blame all of the world's problems on Christianity nearly as much as they did during the Bush years. :)
-
I think Loco's point is simply this:
Every time we turn around, evolutionists claim that they "finally" found the missing link, only to later retract that statement and claim that the fossil is NOT such a link.
A prime example of this happened about 100 years ago. Has anyone ever heard of the coelacanth fish?
Well, evolutionists once that that the coelacanth (or "Zeke", as I like to call it) was extinct. Based on the fossil findings, they made up all manner of wild claims, asserting that this fish's fins were used to walk on the surface of the water and "evolve" into legs to walk on land.
It turns out that these fish weren't so extinct after all. There were found, in a certain region of the world: Alive, well, and (to the chagrin of evolutionists).......STILL FISH!!
They had virtually none of the characteristics that evolutionists assigned to them. That tends to be the case with "living fossils".
do you realize all of the evidence they have? the converging disciplines. Do you realize how important a finding of a unknown ancestor or new species or fossil would be to a scienctist? how much that would do for someones career, their grants, there life would change. So they might be over zealous, but i like how you point out a tenet of science, it is falsifiable and ever changing. If it is incorrect or something else based on proof they simple go with the evidence, they dont try to fit it in or lie, they dont have conclusions and then try to find evidence for them, this is a prime example, science finds truth and is changeble something that could not be said about religion.
-
how much that would do for someones career, their grants, there life would change. So they might be over zealous
Exactly! So why aren't atheists more suspicious of these scientists? Why are atheists so quick to embrace these so called discoveries of the missing link, the "final proof that God doesn't exits"?
BOOOM... hahaha... "where's the missing link, where's the missing link..." The party was bound to be over someday.
Coach says it's a fake. ;)
well there have been fakes before but I doubt this is.
I was being sarcastic; Coach is an idiot. Of course this is legit.
-
Exactly! So why aren't atheists more suspicious of these scientists? Why are atheists so quick to embrace these so called discoveries of the missing link, the "final proof that God doesn't exits"?
im not sure what missing link they are looking for to be honest. There is really no need for more fossil evidence to prove the point, its just a matter of increasing our knowledge and filling the tree completely. Atheists are suspicious, we realize evolution is a fact, we also realize that there are many missing links if you will, or gaps. There is a clear obvious progression but we dont have ever fossil, it would be impossible and we might not even realize what fossils there could be. Shit if a totally new species was found tom, we would have to change according to the facts.
I havent looked at the specific fossil we are talking about, so i dont take anyones word in this thread. I also dont care to read biased christian slants on it, if you want to refute it use science and facts. Science disputes itself everyday, its how people make a living off it. I dont think that evolution could ever prove god doesnt exist, just that the creationist viewpoint is counter to reality. We can never prove god does not exist, nor can we disprove a man on the moon. So if people actually think that they are being over zealous and excited.
-
I also dont care to read biased christian slants on it
The BBC news article is a biased Christian slant?
-
The BBC news article is a biased Christian slant?
maybe, they did have a biased debate on there show a while ago after the christians got anhilated by hitchens and fry.
But the point is i didnt read the article for a while, nor do i know what we are specifically talking about at the moment. I havent looked at this thread in forever, i was making general arguments.
i have no problem with the fossil being a dud, doesnt change a thing.
-
At the moment, we are specifically talking about Darwinius masillae, dubbed Ida. Just a few months ago some scientists and also the media claimed this was finally the missing "direct" link between humans and all other mammals.
Now scientists are saying this isn't even linked to humans at all, it's not an ancestor, not even a close relative to humans.
Look it up when you get a chance.
-
do you realize all of the evidence they have? the converging disciplines. Do you realize how important a finding of a unknown ancestor or new species or fossil would be to a scienctist? how much that would do for someones career, their grants, there life would change. So they might be over zealous, but i like how you point out a tenet of science, it is falsifiable and ever changing. If it is incorrect or something else based on proof they simple go with the evidence, they dont try to fit it in or lie, they dont have conclusions and then try to find evidence for them,....
The HECK THEY DONT!!! Evolution was derived for the EXPRESSED PURPOSE of explaining life on Earth, without the need of a supernatural entity.
But, don't take my word for it:
The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. - George Wald, "Scientific American", 1954 (from "The Origin of Life" article).
-
The HECK THEY DONT!!! Evolution was derived for the EXPRESSED PURPOSE of explaining life on Earth, without the need of a supernatural entity.
But, don't take my word for it:
The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. - George Wald, "Scientific American", 1954 (from "The Origin of Life" article).
1954?
I doubt most of those scientists are even still alive.
-
1954?
I doubt most of those scientists are even still alive.
i know, no one believes in spontaneous evolution, scientists makes mistakes, admit as such and move on. Thats the beauty of it.
-
i know, no one believes in spontaneous evolution, scientists makes mistakes, admit as such and move on. Thats the beauty of it.
Yet, fundies, can't. They have to stick with a book written by primitive men in the bronze age and rely on it to explain everything without error.
That's why religion trying to explain science is as silly as the opposite.
They are 2 different things.
-
The HECK THEY DONT!!! Evolution was derived for the EXPRESSED PURPOSE of explaining life on Earth, without the need of a supernatural entity.
But, don't take my word for it:
The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. - George Wald, "Scientific American", 1954 (from "The Origin of Life" article).
this is also his opinion, why is there no thrid option? LMAO. Seriously so our only options are things pop into existence or god popped into existence being hypercomplex with the ability to create life. Seriously, is this guy an idiot? so he has not heard of any abiogenesis theories? its spontaneous generation or bust apparently, you dont start with a conclusion and then find evidence. You cant start with god created it and then have no evidence for it. Plus god obsfurcates the issue further, making it more complex and unlikely.
question how did god do it? when? where? how does he create life? out of nothing? or is there some life existing and he moulds it? so on and so on? who created him if life needs special creation? why is he exempt from your rules if he doesnt require creation? how do you know? what evidence do you have of this position? why did he wait billions of years? so on and so on.
-
Yet, fundies, can't. They have to stick with a book written by primitive men in the bronze age and rely on it to explain everything without error.
That's why religion trying to explain science is as silly as the opposite.
They are 2 different things.
You mean scientist fundies who keep claiming they've found the missing "direct" link between humans and animals, as is the case in this thread? You mean the atheist fundies who immediately embrace these claims and use them to mock creationists? You mean the scientist fundies who try to use science to explain theology?
-
The HECK THEY DONT!!! Evolution was derived for the EXPRESSED PURPOSE of explaining life on Earth, without the need of a supernatural entity.
But, don't take my word for it:
The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. - George Wald, "Scientific American", 1954 (from "The Origin of Life" article).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
Sterelny (2007) claimed that Eldredge and Gould's "hypothesis has been misunderstood in two important ways. In some early discussions of the idea, the contrast between geological and ecological time was blurred. Hence, Gould and Eldredge were interpreted as making a very radical claim: species originate more or less overnight, in a single step. (But) Gould and Eldredge agree that the new structures are almost always assembled over a number of generations, rather than all at once by macromutation...So by 'rapidly', they mean rapidly by geologist's standards".
-
At the moment, we are specifically talking about Darwinius masillae, dubbed Ida. Just a few months ago some scientists and also the media claimed this was finally the missing "direct" link between humans and all other mammals.
Now scientists are saying this isn't even linked to humans at all, it's not an ancestor, not even a close relative to humans.
Look it up when you get a chance.
Oh please... such is always the case. There's always conflicting opinions. You'll have to do better than "look it up"
-
Oh please... such is always the case. There's always conflicting opinions. You'll have to do better than "look it up"
I already posted 3 links. What else do you want?
-
I already posted 3 links. What else do you want?
well why the hell did you say to look it up when you've already posted what you're talking about ::) Brilliant. We'll just have to wait to see how this plays out. This isn't unusual at all. Clearly there are differing opinions on IDA which I expected there would be, there usually is for these kind of finds. At this point, we wait. Not shocking.
-
You mean scientist fundies who keep claiming they've found the missing "direct" link between humans and animals, as is the case in this thread? You mean the atheist fundies who immediately embrace these claims and use them to mock creationists? You mean the scientist fundies who try to use science to explain theology?
Yet, fundies, can't. They have to stick with a book written by primitive men in the bronze age and rely on it to explain everything without error.
That's why religion trying to explain science is as silly as the opposite.
They are 2 different things.
-
well why the hell did you say to look it up when you've already posted what you're talking about ::) Brilliant. We'll just have to wait to see how this plays out. This isn't unusual at all. Clearly there are differing opinions on IDA which I expected there would be, there usually is for these kind of finds. At this point, we wait. Not shocking.
Having problems reading today, Hugo? I was talking to Necrosis, in response to his post.
I havent looked at the specific fossil we are talking about, so i dont take anyones word in this thread.
-
Having problems reading today, Hugo? I was talking to Necrosis, in response to his post.
I didn't have any problem reading it. ::)
-
I didn't have any problem reading it. ::)
Then you do understand why I told Necrosis to look up his own articles if he doesn't trust any of the ones that I posted.
-
Then you do understand why I told Necrosis to look up his own articles if he doesn't trust any of the ones that I posted.
there's more?
-
there's more?
There's more what?
-
There's more what?
more articles worth linking to from others in the field. If not why issue a challenge to look it up beyond what you posted?
-
more articles worth linking to from others in the field. If not why issue a challenge to look it up beyond what you posted?
It wasn't a challenge. Necrosis said he hadn't looked into this himself, and he said he won't trust what I posted. So I encouraged him to go look into it himself. He said he didn't even know which fossil we were talking about. So I told him which one.
Satisfied, Hugo?
-
nevermind. I should have jumped your shit for quoting me long after the fact to make some lame point I would probably miss and not respond to. what the hell is your point anyway? That I take science as gospel? ::)
-
Clearly there are differing opinions on IDA which I expected there would be, there usually is for these kind of finds. At this point, we wait. Not shocking.
Yeah, sure Hugo, you say that now, but why didn't you say that when OzmO first started this thread in May?
BOOOM... hahaha... "where's the missing link, where's the missing link..." The party was bound to be over someday.
well there have been fakes before but I doubt this is.
-
yea, i doubt it's fake, I still don't think it's fake and like I said we just have to wait for a consensis. big freaking deal, that's usual. the only thing that's unusual with this round is that it went to media before any consensis/scrutiny which I did not know. so they're doing it ass backwards which is uncustomary and not my fucking fault ::) but the only thing that means is we wait and see.
-
yea, i doubt it's fake, I still don't think it's fake and like I said we just have to wait for a consensis. big freaking deal, that's usual. the only thing that's unusual with this round is that it went to media before any consensis/scrutiny which I did not know. so they're doing it ass backwards which is uncustomary and not my fucking fault ::) but the only thing that means is we wait and see.
Why didn't you say "we wait and see" before? You say it now that it turned out to be far from what they originally claimed.
Funny how the media too made a huge deal about this when it was first claimed that this was the missing link. But now that it turned out to be far from it, you don't hear about it.
-
yea, i doubt it's fake, I still don't think it's fake and like I said we just have to wait for a consensis. big freaking deal, that's usual. the only thing that's unusual with this round is that it went to media before any consensis/scrutiny which I did not know. so they're doing it ass backwards which is uncustomary and not my fucking fault ::) but the only thing that means is we wait and see.
Yes, you did know.
BBC News
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
The fossil, nicknamed Ida, is claimed to be a "missing link" between today's higher primates - monkeys, apes and humans - and more distant relatives.
But some independent experts, awaiting an opportunity to see the new fossil, are sceptical of the claim.
And they have been critical of the hype surrounding the presentation of Ida...
...In addition, Ida bears "a close resemblance to ourselves" he said, with nails instead of claws, a grasping hand and an opposable thumb - like humans and some other primates. But he said some aspects of the teeth indicate she is not a direct ancestor - more of an "aunt" than a "grandmother".
"She belongs to the group from which higher primates and human beings developed but my impression is she is not on the direct line."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8057465.stm
-
Yes, you did know.
::) I never read that, you posted that after I was I was finished posting in this thread. I posted before that. Today is the first time I clicked on this thread again and it was by accident and on the last page. I've been thinking about the Christmas shit, not this. The only reason I took note was I saw right away you had called me out ::)
-
::) I never read that, you posted that after I was I was finished posting in this thread. I posted before that. Today is the first time I clicked on this thread again and it was by accident and on the last page. I've been thinking about the Christmas shit, not this. The only reason I took note was I saw right away you had called me out ::)
You didn't read it, huh? Okay, I'll take your word for it. What do you expect me to do, PM you every time I quote you? Ah, no.
And I did not call you out. I quoted you and Deicide as examples to Necrosis of how when it comes to Macro-evolution vs. Creation, many people immediately jump to conclusions before knowing all the facts.
-
You didn't read it, huh? Okay, I'll take your word for it. What do you expect me to do, PM you every time I quote you? Ah, no.
And I did not call you out. I quoted you and Deicide as examples to Necrosis of how when it comes to Macro-evolution vs. Creation, many people immediately jump to conclusions before knowing all the facts.
well I replied to everything else you said so why would I miss that post. because I wasn't reading the thread anymore. You were jerking me around acting like an idiot, I was done with this thread. I didn't see the point or really care anymore. What needed said I said. You clearly can see I did not post again until now. I'm not lying, I didn't see your stupid article. If I'm going to call somebody out half a year after it was being discussed, I would let them know. Hell, I'd start a special thread about it if it was that important.
Yea, your quotes suggest something lacking in my judgement, that's calling me out moron.
-
well I replied to everything else you said so why would I miss that post. because I wasn't reading the thread anymore. You were jerking me around acting like an idiot, I was done with this thread. I didn't see the point or really care anymore. What needed said I said. You clearly can see I did not post again until now. I'm not lying, I didn't see your stupid article. If I'm going to call somebody out half a year after it was being discussed, I would let them know. Hell, I'd start a special thread about it if it was that important.
Yea, your quotes suggest something lacking in my judgement, that's calling me out moron.
If you say that's calling you out, then I guess I did call you out. So what? You jumped to conclusions not knowing all the facts, and not caring to look. And I wasn't jerking you around. Stop being so sensitive.
And there you go again with the name calling. When have I called you names? You love calling people out, but somebody calls you out and you meltdown. You yell at your kids and call them names too when they spill the milk? &guy management is in order here.
-
If you say that's calling you out, then I guess I did call you out. So what? You jumped to conclusions not knowing all the facts, and not caring to look. And I wasn't jerking you around. Stop being so sensitive.
And there you go again with the name calling. When have I called you names? You love calling people out, but somebody calls you out and you meltdown. You yell at your kids and call them names too when they spill the milk? &guy management is in order here.
you're flipping out over moron? lol, ok, I'll go easy on the harsh words haha... Yea, in the topic's first pages, you were totally unwilling to listen to what I was saying replying with nonsensical replies. I didn't see the point in going on. I was happy with what I had said and others can be the judge. Look, if someone is suggesting you have poor judgement, are they not calling you out on that point? Yup... half a year later? lol.... Also, I didn't jump to conclusions, the people who released this to the media jumped steps. I just fucking told you I did not know that. ::)
-
you're flipping out over moron? lol, ok, I'll go easy on the harsh words haha... Yea, in the topic's first pages, you were totally unwilling to listen to what I was saying replying with nonsensical replies. I didn't see the point in going on. I was happy with what I had said and others can be the judge. Look, if someone is suggesting you have poor judgement, are they not calling you out on that point? Yup... half a year later? lol.... Also, I didn't jump to conclusions, the people who released this to the media jumped steps. I just fucking told you I did not know that. ::)
You are the only one here flipping out over me allegedly jerking you around and calling you out. So what if I call you out?
Say what you want. You make a great example of the point I was making to Necrosis.
-
You are the only one here flipping out over me allegedly jerking you around and calling you out. So what if I call you out?
Say what you want. You make a great example of the point I was making to Necrosis.
LOL, whatever. You can do what you want and on the same hand so can I. I saw what you did as lame and let you know. Big freaking deal. by the way, it looks like it was you in this thread that made all the ASSumptions. ;) Most of what you accused me of, baseless.
-
LOL, whatever. You can do what you want and on the same hand so can I. I saw what you did as lame and let you know. Big freaking deal. by the way, it looks like it was you in this thread that made all the ASSumptions. ;) Most of what you accused me of, baseless.
Sure, it's lame and baseless to you only because it's you who jumped to conclusions and embraced all the original claims.
BOOOM... hahaha... "where's the missing link, where's the missing link..." The party was bound to be over someday.
::)
-
Sure, it's lame and baseless to you only because it's you who jumped to conclusions and embraced all the original claims.
::)
no, you jumped to conclusions. You assumed I read your post. WRONG. You assumed I would have posted the same way about this had I known it didn't go through the normal scientific scrutiny before media release. You have to admit, that's not the norm. How the hell was I supposed to know they jumped right to the media first? If you really want to blame me for that, I would say that's being one anal bastard, but go ahead. Blame me for it. ::)
-
no, you jumped to conclusions. You assumed I read your post. WRONG. You assumed I would have posted the same way about this had I known it didn't go through the normal scientific scrutiny before media release. You have to admit, that's not the norm. How the hell was I supposed to know they jumped right to the media first? If you really want to blame me for that, I would say that's being one anal bastard, but go ahead. Blame me for it. ::)
LOL
Sure, Hugo! You didn't read anything on this thread for months until you "accidentally" opened this thread again today. ::)
-
LOL
Sure, Hugo! You didn't read anything on this thread for months until you "accidentally" opened this thread again today. ::)
I didn't, that's the truth, go fuck yourself if you don't believe it. And I don't really give a shit if you don't. Your attacks are only worth a crap if you do so I guess you ride everything on me lying. ::) I didn't give a fuck about this thread anymore. and yes, I clicked the last page thinking it was another thread. Had I not I would have never seen your lame call out.
-
I didn't, that's the truth, go fuck yourself if you don't believe it. And I don't really give a shit if you don't. Your attacks are only worth a crap if you do so I guess you ride everything on me lying. ::) I didn't give a fuck about this thread anymore. and yes, I clicked the last page thinking it was another thread. Had I not I would have never seen your lame call out.
you are being owned into oblivion, just pointing that out. You seem a little angry as well, is there things?
it was bad reporting ill give you that, just like the global warming emails that were taken out of context and displayed on fox. You have to watch the media, they are full of morons who no nothing. seriously.
-
keep dreaming....
-
What a joke! I can't even fathom, this has been allowed. "Calling Ron Avidan", ALERT! ALERT! We have malfunction! :-X
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent